HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/22/1988PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 1988
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at
6:31 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 La Portc Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Board members present included Don Crews, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Bernic
Strom, Sharon Brown, Jim Klataske, and Chairwoman Laurie O'Dell.
Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Debbie dcBcsche,
Mike Herzig, Jim Faulhaber, Kari VanMcter, Linda Ripley, Rick Ensdorff,
Barbara Hendrickson, and Paul Eckman.
Chairwoman O'Dell gave a brief presentation honoring the work done by for-
mer Boardmcmber, Linda Lang.
Joe I:rank rcvic�%cd the Conscnl and Discussion Agenda. The Conscni Agenda
included Item I, Minutes of the January 25, 1988 meeting; Item 2, Animal
Medical Center of Fort Collins #2-88; Item 3, Amendment to Lot IIA Drake
• Park fill) - Preliminary and Fioa1 #5-88; 11csit 4, Moreland PIID - Final
#14-83C; and Nest Elizabeth Pill) - Final - One Year Extension #36-84A. Mr.
I -rank staled that lieu 2, Animal Medical Center of Fort Collins - Preliminary
#2-88 should be placed on the Discussion Agenda.
Member Kern moved
to approve Consent
Agenda Items 1, 3, 4, and
5. Member
Crews seconded the
motion. The motion
was adopted 6-0.
ANIMAL MEDICAL
CLINIC OF FORT
COLLINS #2-88. Request
for a 7,674
square foot animal
medical center, hospital,
kennel, and 1 bedroom
apartment,
on .95 acres, located at the southwest
corner of Myrtle Street
and College
Avenue.
Debbie dcBeschc, Project Planner, gave a description of the project. She stated
that she had received 3 letters of opposition which were enclosed in the Staff'
Report. She also noted a memo was provided to the Members which addressed
the concerns raised by the Board at the agenda review meeting.
John Barnett, ZVFK, gave a description of the facility. It would include an
animal clinic, kennel, storage area and one bedroom apartment. Ile staled that
the clinic would be equipped with modern technology including sound and air
filtration systems. Ile stated that the plan included 12 off -site parking spaces.
The site of the project was
the former Beebe
Clinic. A minimum modification
would be done to upgrade
the existing facilities.
He pointed
out that there
was a church to the north,
mixed commercial
uses to the cast,
a single family
home and commercial uses
to the south and
residential uses to
the west. tic
.
felt that the use of the property for a clinic
was appropriate.
lie asked that
Planning and Zoning ,oard - February 22, 1988
Page 2
the preliminary approval be acted upon. Ile noted that there were oulstanding
issues, which involve the signage, parking lot design and landscape design.
Member Kern asked about the soundproofing and noise filtration systems.
Greg Anderson, Antshcll Corp., stated that the kennel is in the basement. Any
noise would be contained there.
Mcmber Kern asked if the heating and cooling fans would be obtrusive.
Mr. Stephens replied that the proposed units were smaller than the existing
units and would remain in the existing mechanical room in the basement.
Mcmbcr Crews asked about the signagc.
Mr. Barnett stated the proposed sign was 6" wider than the one seen on the
plan. It would be internally illuminated. He believed the sign was appropriate
with the architecture of the building. He stated there would also be a lighted
canopy sign.
Member Crews asked if this clinic required that kind of advertising and asked
why they wanted a larger sign.
Mr. Barnett replied that the sign was important to let people know that the
facility was available
Mcmbcr Strom asked the height of the sign.
Mr. Barnett stated that it would be 8-9 feet high.
Member Strom stated that he felt the previously proposed sign was too large.
Ile fell there was too much signagc shown on the plan.
Mr. Harnett slated the signagc was comparable to surrounding signs and pointed
out that they wish to use only half the amount allowed by the sign rode.
Member Brown asked why the emergency access was needed.
Mr. Barnett replied that the applicant wished an area to be available through
which injured animals could be brought to the clinic. He used a slide to point
out the access, and how the injured animal would be transported from a car to
the building.
Member Brown asked which landscaped island would be changed.
Mr. Barnett stated the island to be changed was located west of the building
and pointed out that the area was needed for an extra parking space.
Mcmbcr Crews asked why the existing island would not work as it had with
the Bccbc Clinic,
Mr. Barnett stated that the island was composed of concrete and a tree stump.
It was, in his opinion, inappropriate.
Planning and Z009 Board - February 22, 1988 •
Page 3
• Ms. deBcschc asked the Board to act on the Preliminary approval with three
conditions. The conditions were that the following items would be resolved
prior to final approval: 1) signage, 2) parking lot design and 3) the landscape
plan for the southern border of the property.
Member Brown asked why the project was not given points for being in the
Central Business District on item 2d, of the Business Service Uses Point Chart.
Ms. deBcschc pointed out that the project was given points on item 2c of the
Business Service Uses Point Chart for being in the Central Business District
and would qualify for additional points with item 2d.
Conrad Woodall, a CSU student, told the Board that he and his class visited
the block. From a historical perspective, the Beebe Clinic was the key to the
block. lie believed the proposed land use was appropriate.
Ed
Umlauf, applicant, gave the
Board
a brief history of his background and
the
reasons for the application.
He stated
the term "kennel' was not appropri-
ate.
lie added that the clinic
would
offer grooming, a nutritional eentar. A
new
apartment for a veterinary
student
would also be built. He felt the sign
was
necessary to advertise his services,
and was in character with the existing
building.
Chairwoman O'Dell asked if the sign would be available for review at the
March meeting.
. Ms. deBcschc stated yes.
Member Brown asked if the Board did not like the sign size, could they
modify it.
Ms. deBcschc stated yes.
Chairwoman O'Dell thought it might be helpful to know about other signage in
the neighborhood. She felt that the 9' sign may overwhelm the site.
Member Crews expressed concerns regarding the lighted sign. He stated there
were other signs in the area which were not lighted. He fell that an electric
sign would not be compatible with the neighborhood.
Member Strom pointed out that Garment District sign was a large sign but on
a large building. The setback from the R.O.W. was considerable.
Mr. Eckman referred to All Development Criteria #44 of the L.D.G.S. which
states: "Arc all signs in the project in compliance with the provisions of this
chapter?", meaning the Sign Code. He also referred to Section II8-83F„
paragraph 5, which states, "all signs must conform with the sign code" and
further provides that the 'Planning Director may approve signs conforming to
the sign code but where extensive signage is proposed or the signage would
have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhoods, the Planning Director
may submit the proposed signs for approval by the Board". He therefore
. thought the focus should be on whether the proposed sign had an adverse
effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
Planning and Zoning ward - February 22, 1988
Page 4
Member Kern moved to approve the Fort Collins Animal Medical Clinic Preli-
minary with the three conditions recommended by staff. Member Crews sec-
onded the motion. The motion was adopted 6-0.
ROBINSON-PIERSAL AMENDED FINAL #26-85G. Request for a 51,000
square foot grocery store and 9,900 square feet of additional retail on 4.82
acres, located at the northeast corner of Mulberry Street and College Avenue.
Member Edwards stated he had a conflict of interest, removed himself from
consideration and left the room.
Kari VanMetcr, Project Planner, stated that the application was the amended
final site plan of the Robinson Picrsal P.U.D. The amended preliminary was
approved by the Board on February I, 1988. On February 16th, the Fort Col-
lins City Council upheld the continuance of the encroachment permit. 'file
applicant had amended the site, landscape and elevations in response to
suggestions made by the Board and Staff.
Chairwoman ('Dell asked if there were any questions of Mr. Zdcnck conrcrn-
ing the changes that have been made since the last time they saw the prchnii-
nary.
Member Strom asked that either Mr. Zdcnck or Ms. VanMetcr briefly describe
the changes.
Ms. VanMetcr replied that the plan was in conformance with the preliminary
approval. She stated that the Board directed the applicant to make certain
changes in the final site plan to further mitigate the impacts associated with
the loading area. The applicant modified the west end of the loading area on
Magnolia Street. She showed how the retaining wall was pulled back closer to
the building. She stated that the modification would provide additional
landscaping and better trash enclosure space. The revision will provide a
bcller, inorc well-rounded landscaped area at the west end of the loading area.
The applicant will use a canopy over the window on the cast elevation to
provide visual relief and interest.
Chairwoman O'Dell
asked if there were
any additional questions
by the Board
of Ms. VanMetcr.
There were none.
She then asked if Mr.
Zdcnck, Mr.
Wheeler or Mr. Van
Horn had any more
information to present to
the Board.
Mr. Zdenek stated they would wait and respond with comments later in the
meeting.
Ms. VanMetcr stated again that the final plan was in substantial conformance
with the approved preliminary plan. The primary changes from the prelimi-
nary plan were the use of the canopy over the window on the cast elevation
and the modifications to the west end of the loading area. The final plan was
in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary and met the applica-
blc criteria of the L.D.G.S. The Staff recommendation was for approval of the
amended final plan.
John Schofield, representing the owners of the Clock Tower project and Collins
House building, spoke. He said that he wished to give a refresher to the
Planning and Zog Board - February 22, 1988
Page 5
• Board of the last three years. He said that there were Boardmcmbers who
were on the Board at that time, however most weren't.
He stated in June of 1985, when the Board first considered the proposal, one
of the comments made by a Board member (in 1985) was that they felt that
any alternative design should not intrude on the ROW. He stated that one of
the Board members said (in 1985) they supported the concept, but felt the
service area needed to be considered as did traffic on Magnolia Street. Mr.
Schofield submitted that it has been considered several times, but not signifi-
cantly changed.
In 1985, the Board considered the project with II residential stories. At the
October 28, 1985 meeting, there were minor changes made in the plan, The
developer removed the landscape plantings from the interior of the parking lot.
Some members expressed concerns at that time, that the project be done as one
phase.
One question discussed (in 1985) was the parking and how the parking related
to the existing Safeway. Mr. Schofield did a little homework for the Board
and stated that the current Safeway had 26,000 s.f. and 130 parking spaces.
The proposed project consisted of 60,900 s.f. and 258 parking spaces. The
project therefore had 25% less parking than the existing Safeway across the
street. tic enjoyed a comment from one of the Members made in 1985, con-
ccrning a 5 foot area being able to support substantial trees. In the approved
Magnolia Street encroachment, the majority of landscaping was 5 feet in width.
• That particular aspect had not changed since 1985. Concerns were expressed in
that year whether or not a 5 foot wall would screen semi -trailers which arc 13
to 15 feet in height.
In 1985, the Board required that Phases I and II be considered simultaneously
and a further study of the Magnolia Street traffic flow be completed. In
addition, the aesthetic treatment of the service area should be reviewed. The
Board required that the east building elevation and the landscaping on the cast
and north be enhanced.
Al the November 18th meeting in 1985, the Board required that both Phases be
completed simultaneously. There was a discussion about traffic, parking, and
pedestrians. Mr. Schofield found further confirmation of this action in Elaine
Kleckner and Mike Herzig's memo through Mr. Burkett and Mr. Davis to the
City Council on the encroachment permit. He quoted, "The developer originally
planned to phase the project and build the grocery store and parking lot.
Planning and Zoning required that the residential high-rise had to be included
at the same time and phased with the PUD in it's entirely". In 1986 a voter
referendum was held. Even though the referendum had nothing to do with the
plan said Mr. Schofield, the voters approved the project. tic thought the
project was something that the voters would dispute if the election were held
toda y.
In February of 1987, the project was changed to reduce the number of stories
from II to 7. Mr. Schofield noted that one of the Board members said, "The
Board should take any action possible to make sure the plan does have a
residential component". He further quoted the Boardmember by stating, "the
Board should adopt a resolution to City Council in order to prohibit the
Planning and Zoning-�oard - February 22, 1988
Page 6
building just as a supermarket".
In his opinion, the PUD was totally devoid of residential character. ttc
discussed the project with Mr. Mike Davis. Mr. Davis indicated that a new
City policy had been drawn up concerning encroachments. At that time the
plan was approved, it was not run through that policy because there was not a
policy. Mr. Schofield would certainly like to know why that particular policy
had not been applied? Mr. Davis told the City Council last week in their
deliberations that staff had not in any way reviewed this particular project in
regards to the new policy. Mr. Schofield indicated that in earlier discussions
with Mr. Davis, he was quite emphatic that his personal opinion was that this
particular encroachment would not comply with the policy.
Mr. Schofield then told the Board he wished to give them an estimation of
how the project "stacks up". He showed slides of the existing Toddy's store
and it's typical supermarket loading area. He pointed out that the area
abutting the residential area was surrounded by a 9' solid fence and raised a
foot or a foot and one-half above grade. At the Albertson's at Riverside
Junction, the developers have provided space to access the loading area. He
asked the Board to notice that there was more than 5' of screening and the
loading is found ❑II on -site.
Mr. Schofield then showed a slide of the Safeway on Drake Rd. and com-
mented on how deciduous trees provided a screen during the winter months.
The loading area there was completely on -site and the width of the driveway
approximately 20'. He asked the Board to notice thirty feet of landscaped
screening with a double row of staggered evergreen trees, again substantially
more than the five feet discussed on Magnolia.
Steele's Market (the south store) was, in his opinion, a very .difficult site to
work with. It was irregular in shape with on -site -loading areas. It had 10
feet of landscaping plus large trees to screen the sides of a truck. All of the
screening was in the ROW, and a ditch. The nearest structure was over 200
feet away. He felt Steele's did a very nice job of leaving plenty of room
on -site for trucks to back up from the street, in case the loading area was full.
In his opinion, the most difficult grocery store site in the city was the
downtown Steele's Market. He felt they have done an excellent job of
improvements on their property. The site was considerably smaller than that
under consideration.
The downtown Steele's building was 17,000 square feet on a 70,000 square foot
lot. The Safeway proposal the Board had under consideration was comprised
of 60,900 square feet of building on a 120,000 square feet lot. This was more
than twice the amount of building per square foot of land than the Steele's
arca. Their loading arcs was on -site. They supply an on -site parking, area
which allowed the trucks to back in from the street to the loading ramp, on
site. The loading area was 100 feet from the street ROW. At the expense of
their own parking, they have left plenty of room for additional trucks. The
Safeway in Vail has a totally enclosed area in the back of the building for
loading and unloading.
Mr. Schofield asked the Board to remember that the present site had two, ten
Planning and Zo!Vg Board - February 22, 1988 •
Page 7
• foot landscaped areas with a 6' sidewalk. As part of the site clearing, it
disappeared. The encroachment permit would have the curb move from it's'
existing location, approximately 4' north into Magnolia Street Mr. Schofield
then showed the Board slides of streets near the project. He asked the Board
to keep in mind that the curb would be 4' further to the north. His slides
showed truck loading at the existing Safeway. He showed a slide with the
loading area containing a 40' van, with three others (step vans) parked on
Mason Street
A tractor trailer northbound on College, was asked to make a turn on Magnolia
the way a truck in his opinion, would come into the proposed loading area.
He pointed out that he believed these were the only two ways to get to the
proposed loading area. One was College north or south with a turn onto
Magnolia. The other one would be along Mulberry to Mason and up Magnolia.
Mr. Schofield noted that when a truck stops for a car sitting in the center
lane, that particular (traffic) lane on College Avenue stops. The only way to
make that turn work was to make the car back out of the center lane to allow
the truck to complete his turn. The diagonal parking on the north side -(of
Magnolia), when the cars back out, does not allow the truck to go anywhere.
Another slide was shown with the relationship of the truck to the centerline
and how traffic would stop. The truck driver could miss the car but the
wheels of the truck would go over the curb. He stated that he was not a
traffic engineer but he has had experience with heavy equipment and believed
the situation described by the traffic engineer and would not work.
• lie asked the Board to notice the damage that semi trucks would do to the
electrical vaults, sewer vaults, curbs, sidewalks, and pedestrians. He felt that
when a truck would come around the corner and find the loading area filled
with trucks, he would stop somewhere. All the traffic on College Ave. would
then have to go around the truck. He believed that some poor truck driver
would not look for the three (required) "No Stopping, Standing or Parking"
signs.
Randy Larsen stated that he has been before the Board and City Council many
times since 1985. He, at first, tried to work with the developer but has been
speaking against this project ever since. He noted that John or Barb (Scho
field) or himself were at every meeting. They represented a united front
against the project.
He has also heard a lot of fear and bugaboo about use by right. He suggested
that the fear was, in many ways, unfounded. In his opinion, use by right does
have a lot of rules. He suggested that the Board read the zoning book to find
out this information.
For example, sonic projects done by use by right arc the Clock Tower Square,
the Collins House and the United Bank's drive up facilities. Interior
landscaping was required for a use by right in the BG zone. Therefore, he
would like the Board to think about those types of alternatives. The reason
for a PUD would be to get something better than a use by right. He does
not think the Board has anything better. He felt the project was worse than a
• use by right.
Planning and Zoning Board - February 22, 1988
Page 8
Mrs. Schofield asked the Board to consider the information they received over
the last several P & Z Meetings and tonight. When she heard the Board's
comments previously, she had never once heard one of them as a proponent of
this project. She stated that all members of the Board have struggled with it,
and asked themselves many questions, and asked staff questions. She thought
that if the Board considered the information, they will have to agree that the
project does not work.
As shown with the Steele's project, the site, in her opinion, was too small for
this size of a store. The developers have made a rotten choice for location of
the Safeway project. The traffic does not work, the truck delivery system does
not work, and it will impact the neighboring area with parking concerns.
The trucks that they showed in the slides, delivered to a store half the size of
what the new store would be. She asked if this meant that the truck traffic
would double or more than double?
She asked that the Board consider the facts in front of them. She noted that
one of the Boardmembers asked if they could get rid of this project in hopes
that something better will come along in the future. Paul Eckmann said no,
the Board could not make a judgement based on anything in the future, they
must consider the project in front of them. She told the Board that the same
would hold true about use by right. It would be equally wrong and equally
illegal to make a decision based on the threat that the developer and architect
have made to the Board by stating saying that if you (the Board) does not go
along with them, they would slap the (Board's) hands and build use by right.
It would be equally wrong to make a decision based on that threat as it would
be equally wrong to make an incorrect decision based on the hope of some-
thing better coming along. Mr. Schofield asked the Board to hold their heads
up high and to do the right thing. She thought the Board knew in their
hearts that the project would not work. The project was not right for the
situation, did not meet the LDGS, despite the fudging on the point system that,
in her opinion, has taken place. She asked that the Board turn it down.
Nicmber Brown asked for a comment from Mr. Ensdorff regarding the truck
turning slide. She wished to know if what was presented tonight was an
accurate depiction of what could happen at that intersection when scmi-trucks
attempted to make the turn.
Rick Ensdorff, Traffic Engineer, stated that it was an accurate depiction. In
fact, it would be an accurate depiction of a semi truck turn movement almost
anywhere in the City. He said that we did not design city streets to handle
semi trucks. The difference on this site was that we were able, through the
development review process, to provide a better turning radius.
Vic ucnt on further to state that if you were to follow a scmi-truck around
town, you would find that they have trouble turning in the downtown and
most places in the city. At the Stccic's, Toddy's or Safeway site, when a semi
makes a turn they cannot turn from one lane to another. The city will pro-
viding, in this project, an improved turning radius.
The current radius is 15' (northbound on College turning eastbound on Magno-
lia). The project would increase that to 25'. The city standard would allow
Planning and Ag Board - February 22, 1988 0
1'agc 9
. the truck to make an easier turn. Another factor considered was that the
stripping at Magnolia would be moved 1-2 feet to the north to get a better
alignment. It would create a little more room. In closing he stated, that scmi
trucks will have the opportunity to turn from the left turn lane on College
Ave.
Member Brown replied that she realized that a turning movement was a prob-
Icm. Often times, however, we have a four lane street with a turn bay in the
middle. A turn will be from the interior lane of their side of the street. She
felt this situation was a little bit different.
Mr. Ensdorff stated that in the newer parts of town she was correct, but in
the older parts of town, in particular the downtown. The City does not have
many four lane streets. If a truck would turn from northbound College to
eastbound Prospect, there have been times when they have had a difficult time
making it across the two thru lanes. The trucks could swing out and use the
two thru lanes on College to get into the proper lane. Those kinds of turn
movements do have an impact. There was one other factor that should be
considered at the site. There would be one semi -truck n day which would
turn. If there were a greater volume, there would be more concern on his
part.
Member Brown stated that the Board has been told there will be, on the aver-
age, one large semi -truck per day. She asked Mr. Schofield if his research
showed anything different than that at any of the any other markets in town,
especially the Safeways in town.
Mr. Schofield stated that his observation were random. He did not have time
to sit and watch trucks go in and out all day. During the 3-4 days that they
randomly observed, he drove by instead of directly going to the office. His
observation was that there were never less than 2 or 3 delivery vans (step)
backed into the loading dock. How many scmi-trailers per day, he could not
tell the Board but their observation was that there were more than one per
day.
Chairwomen O'Dell asked Mr. Zdcnek if he had any information about the
Safeway in Drake Crossing and what kind of trucks delivered to the facility.
Mr. Zdcnck stated that Safeway represented that there would be one scmi truck
a day. In any given day, there might be two. The average, however, would be
about one a day. There would be smaller step vans but they were not the
ones which would impact the turning radius.
Member Kern asked if' they could have these trucks unload at specific times
and would the applicant be amenable to restrictions on delivery time?
Mr. Zdcnek stated that the applicant had agreed to work with the City to
control access to the service area.
Mr. Van
Horn stated
that Safeway's response to
this issue was that not
only do
they do
have control
over their own trucks, but
they also control the
vendor's
trucks.
was not
If there was a problem they could react
in their interest to have trucks
to it. Safeway stated that it
It
stack up.
does not provide
efficient
Planning and Zoning .bard - February 22, 1988
Page 10
use of their in-store personnel.
He would anticipate that the unloading would occur at hours when the store
was not busy. He did not anticipate this to be a time when the street was
congested. If it became a problem, they would respond to it. He told the
Board that he found Safeway to be very cooperative to the municipalities in
which they were located. He asked if anyone had a bad experience with Safe-
way or have they not responded to a request to cooperate?
Mcmber Kern stated that some of his concerns related to the fact that it would
be helpful if the delivery trucks came in either before or after normal
business hours, and not during high traffic times on College Ave.
Mr. Van Horn felt that Safeway would agree. He saw all the slides on the
back of the Safeway and wondered if anyone has ever talked to the store
manager and told him that he could improve that situation. No one has
brought that up. Safeway does have control over the situation but as Ed said
the normal circumstances would be a single large Safeway semi -truck a day. He
believed Safeway's goals were similar to the public ones.
Member Brown asked to see the site plan slide. She stated she had seen the
smaller vendor trucks and asked to see how 5 of those trucks would work on
the site in question?
Mr. 7,dcnek showed how it could be accomplished. Along the building there
was sufficient room for three trucks. He showed where there was room for
three additional trucks. Six trucks could be behind the fence at any one time.
The fence would be 6' high with 2' of wrought iron on top of that. In effect,
an 8' high fence.
Member Brown asked if Safeway will have a postal service box. She found
that to be a problem at Toddy's, when the mail trucks stop in front of the
store. She wondered if that was to be the case with this proposal.
Mr. Van Horn answered no.
Member Crews moved the .approval of the Robinson I'iersal Plaza run
Amended Final. lie staled that he made the motion primarily because the pro-
ject was in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan.
Member Kern seconded the motion.
Member Strom stated he felt he said everything he had to say last month both
pro and con. He felt that there some good things and bad things about the
project. tic will be consistent and vote against it again tonight, primarily
because he felt the project did not comply with two specific development
criteria in the LDGS. The first was #26 which speaks to the integration of
activities with the organizational scheme of the community and neighborhood.
The second was #38 which had to do with pedestrian interaction between the
site and the neighborhood.
Member Brown stated she voted for the preliminary because she felt confident
that the traffic and circulation would work. Tonight she will vote against it
as she felt it will not work. The Board was told that there would only be one
Ag
Planning
and
Board -
February 22,
1988
Page II
truck.
She
felt comfortable
with that last time. She then thought about the
twenty
year
life span of the
building and
the possibility of vendors and larger
trucks.
She
felt that Mr. Schofield did
point out that the Collegc/Magnoli❑
intersection
would not work
with big trucks. They could have more of them
and 1'or
that
reason, she would
vote no.
Member Kern stated that this project has been a long hard pull. He thought
no one on the Board wanted to see this project boil down to just a Safeway
store. He thought the developer did not either. He felt Member Strom's
comments were appropriate. Enough had been said during the last two or
three meetings concerning the project. His reason to vote for the project was
in part, due to the fact that he believed that the applicants could mitigate the
traffic. In addition the DDA believed that the project would help the down-
town area remain more economically viable. Their support and request had
swung him more than any other reason. He did not feel comfortable with the
encroachment issue. tic pointed out that the City Council several weeks
before, resolved the encroachment issue.
Chairwoman O'Dell told the Schoficlds she appreciated the work that they have
done and the concern they have for the downtown. She had to weigh that
against the DDA's letter to the Board which encouraged the Board to support
the project. They believed that it would be a valuable addition to downtown.
To have successful housing downtown, the residents needed a place to shop. It
was one of the goals of the City to keep the downtown alive. She thought the
Schoficlds were concerned about the use by right. That was understandable
• because people will want to be downtown and have stores downtown and live
downtown if it is a beautiful place. She felt the application was a trade-off
and the most difficult project they have had to review. She believed it was
trade off and the plan, as it stood, using part of the ROW was legitimate. She
would support the motion for final approval.
Molion adopted 4-2 with Members Sham and Brown voliug no.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
E